A Conservative's Take: Top 10 Reasons Why Romney Lost

The conservative media on televsion, {sic} radio and online is perfectly happy to simply feed its base of supporters exactly what it wants to hear (thus creating delusions about reality which inevitably hinder the ability to actually win).

1. Well that is two minutes I'll never get back

2. Largely BS is right! Here's what this deluded tool has to say about Mittens:

I have no problem with people disagreeing with Mitt Romney or wanting President Obama to be reelected because they align with him philosophically. However, the obscene caricature of Mitt Romney as an out of touch, over-privileged rich guy who doesn't pay taxes, can't be trusted and would do anything to become president because of personal ambition, is simply scandalously unfair. Romney is a self-made man who has undoubtedly given more of his time and money to charitable causes (and probably to the federal government as well) than any presidential candidate in the history of the country. The stories of his generosity (though mostly ignored by the media and his own campaign) are quite extraordinary. The fact that he never got credit for having two Harvard post-graduate degrees (when Obama was given so much in 2008 for just having one) was just not fair. Mitt Romney is a great man who America would have been proud to have as their president. Instead, as it turns out, perhaps we as a country didn't really deserve him.

Dude. Mittens is exactly an "out of touch, over-privileged rich guy who doesn't pay taxes, can't be trusted and would do anything to become president because of personal ambition." This is why almost nobody, including many members of his own party, likes the guy.

The one thing he is right about, though, is the conservative media's creation of an impenetrable echo chamber.

3. Umberto Eco had a brilliant take on this (essay linked below):

The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

Sound familiar? Obama is simultaneously weak, effette, ineffectual, but also able to subvert and destroy the entire country if he isn't stopped!

This has got to be the most bizarre excuse for Romney losing that I've ever seen.

By far the most underrated reason that Romney is going to lose is what happened late last year in Pennsylvania. That was when (not coincidentally, just after the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke) Republican Governor Tom Corbett scrapped a plan which would have passed both houses of the state legislature which would have allotted the Pennsylvania's Electoral College votes by congressional district. This would have been devastating to the Obama campaign because under his best case scenario it would have cost Obama at least 20 votes in the EC and meant that the Romney camp would not have had to burn so many resources banging their head against the wall in Ohio.

'Not coincidentally'? What the fuck is the link between the University of Pennsylvania and the electoral college? Notice that what he was hoping for was the ability of the Republicans to gerrymander the electoral college votes:

The plan, which is backed by Gov. Tom Corbett (R), would scrap the state’s current winner-take-all method for awarding the state’s 20 electoral votes and dole them out depending on the result in each of the 18 congressional districts.
...
Democrats are already expressing fears that changing the winner-take-all system could cost them big in 2012 – most particularly if other states follow Pennsylvania’s lead.

Despite Pennsylvania having gone for the Democratic nominee for president in every election since 1988, Republicans currently control 12 of 19 of the state’s congressional districts and should be able to cement those 12 seats when the GOP-controlled state legislature redraws congressional districts in the coming month.

So, even if President Obama carries Pennsylvania in 2012, Republicans would likely win many of the state’s 20 electoral votes — and could give the GOP as many as 12 or 13 extra electoral votes.